Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Father Zane P. appealed from orders summarily denying his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petitions seeking further family reunification services for his daughters A.P. and Z.P. The children were detained in August 2023 after father was arrested and charged with lewd or lascivious acts with a minor and child endangerment. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) alleged father drugged and sexually abused a non-related minor in the children's home while they were present and left an unsecured, loaded firearm accessible to them. The juvenile court sustained the petition in November 2023, finding the children were at risk of sexual abuse by father.
At the January 2024 disposition hearing, the court removed the children and granted father family reunification services. The children were placed with paternal uncle and aunt in Washington in April 2024. Father partially complied with his case plan, completing a gun safety course and enrolling in sex offender treatment and child abuse programs. By June 2024, father had been convicted of sexual battery and molesting a child under 18. At an August 2025 contested review hearing, the court terminated father's reunification services, finding he showed a clear lack of insight and ongoing risk to his daughters.
On February 11, 2026, less than two weeks before the scheduled section 366.26 permanency hearing, father filed section 388 petitions asking the court to resume his reunification services for six months. He alleged circumstances had changed because he had completed 62 classes in his sex offender treatment program and 46 of 52 sessions for child abuse counseling. The juvenile court summarily denied the petitions on February 13 and 23, 2026, finding the proposed change did not promote the best interests of the children. At the February 23 permanency hearing, the court terminated parental rights.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying father's section 388 petitions without an evidentiary hearing. Section 388 allows a parent to petition to change prior orders upon grounds of changed circumstances or new evidence, and petitions are liberally construed in favor of granting a hearing. However, the parent must make a prima facie showing that circumstances have changed and that the proposed change will be in the best interests of the child. The summary denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Where reunification services have been terminated, the focus shifts to the child's need for permanency and stability, and there is a rebuttable presumption that continued foster care is in the child's best interests. A petition to reopen reunification must establish how the change will advance the child's need for permanency. The record supported the juvenile court's implicit finding that father failed to make such a showing.
Father's petitions focused on his progress in treatment programs and his remorse, but his sole stated reason for why additional services would benefit the children was that he was in a position to safely meet their needs. He did not explain how this would advance their need for permanency when they had been living in a safe, stable home with the P.s for almost two years. Moreover, despite his claimed progress, father acted inappropriately during his January 2026 visits by pressuring the children and whispering to them about what to say in court, causing them emotional distress. The court also noted that another six months would not have enabled father to complete his sex offender treatment program, which the provider estimated would require 11 to 12 months. Granting another opportunity to reunify would have served only to delay the children's permanency and create more uncertainty.
Key Takeaways
- A parent seeking to reopen reunification services under section 388 after services have been terminated must make a prima facie showing not only of changed circumstances but also that the proposed change will advance the child's need for permanency and stability.
- Where children have been in a stable placement for an extended period, a parent's general assertion that he can now safely meet their needs is insufficient to establish that further services would serve their best interests.
- A parent's recent inappropriate conduct toward the children, even while participating in required programs, can undermine claims of changed circumstances and demonstrate that further services would not benefit the children.
- The summary denial of a section 388 petition is reviewed for abuse of discretion and rarely merits reversal.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates the high bar parents face when seeking to reopen reunification services after termination and when children have achieved stability in a permanent placement. Section 388 petitions must do more than show a parent has made progress in services; they must specifically explain how further services will advance the children's need for permanency and stability. The decision reinforces that the juvenile court's focus at this stage is on the children's need for permanency, not on rewarding the parent's efforts, and that recent conduct pressuring the children remains highly relevant.